Be careful, my journalism tutor would say. Because someone committed a crime doesn't necessarily mean you should blithely label them a criminal. A vicar caught speeding isn't the same as a burglar with 52 previous convictions. Should we view those involved in racist and sexist or homophobic hate crimes in the same light?

What about the guy who sent racist tweets to the commentator and former footballer Stan Collymore? Last week, Joshua Cryer, a law student from Burnley, was sentenced to two years' community service and ordered to pay £150 legal costs, after admitting sending nasty stuff to Collymore. The district judge, Stephen Earl, gave Cryer a talking to. But it was a strange admonishment. "I don't doubt you are not an inherently racist person, but you did act in an intentionally racist way," he said. This, no doubt, referred to the mitigation offered by Cryer's solicitor. He is man with many Asian friends, he said. "Not … a dyed-in-the-wool racist."

Can one say that? Despite Cryer's case that he was just baiting Collymore, is it likely that the man who thought to call Collymore "Stan Cooneymore", with a hashtag "greatracistabuse" harboured no significant thought of his victim's supposed inferiority. Consider the hashtag he invented for the second offensive message "#neitherwhitenorblack". Collymore is of mixed race. That's deep. That's a jibe from someone determined to make a viscerally negative point on the basis of the victim's heritage. That's not something said in the heat of a football match, à la Luis Suarez abusing Patrice Evra. It's a racism altogether more considered.

So it was racist. But is he a racist? Well this is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines racism: "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." Alternatively, "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior".

I'd say Cryer probably meets the second criteria, but I can't be sure he's a racist in the way Nick Griffin is a racist. I don't know much about him. Despite the time they spent together, neither does the judge. So how did m'lud feel qualified to acquit him of that particular flaw? I just don't know.